Monthly Archives: January 2014

Post navigation

A popular gifted program will get the axe after Ditmas Park school officials chose diversity over exclusivity.

Citing a lack of diversity, PS 139 Principal Mary McDonald informed parents in a letter that the Students of Academic Rigor and two other in-house programs would no longer accept applications for incoming kindergartners.

“Our Kindergarten classes will be heterogeneously grouped to reflect the diversity of our student body and the community we live in,” McDonald told parents in a letter posted on the photo-sharing site flickr and obtained by Ditmas Park Corner.

The benefit of diversity, however it is defined, has never been established, beyond some wild claims by people in the diversity rackets. History, on the other hand, shows humans have been against diversity since the dawn of time. In fact, diversity is most likely bad for human communities. The evidence thus far shows that the greater the diversity, the weaker the community, as fewer people volunteer and participate in the running of the community.

We are tribal animals and that means being around people like us. 100,000 years or so of evolution is not going to yield to wishful thinking from people who tend not to live the diverse lifestyle. That’s the thing with the cult of diversity. The preachers tend to live in homogeneous communities, which means white communities. You never hear black people in the ghetto talking about diversity. The only time blacks use the word is as code to mean lots of black people, which is how white people are now using it.

This particular school is in a gentrifying neighborhood, which means loads of middle-class white women pretending to be artists as they live like June Cleaver. That’s the other thing about the diversity cult. The women all pretend to be artsy feminists, but they live like a 1950’s house wife, including the husband with the good job. All of their progressive posturing is intended to conceal the very real fact they live a very homogeneous life. Multiculturalism is a burka they throw over their life.

Quarterback Eli Manning and New York Giants brass created bogus “game-worn” football gear to pass off as the real deal — and one of the forgeries is sitting in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, an explosive new lawsuit claims.

A helmet on display in the hallowed Canton, Ohio, gridiron museum — supposedly worn by Manning in Big Blue’s 2008 Super Bowl victory over the New England Patriots — is just one of dozens of fake items the football superstar and his Giants cohorts have created to fool fans and make money from collectors over the years, the lawsuit alleges.

Other “forgeries” passed off on collectors include several Manning jerseys, two 2012 Super Bowl helmets and a 2004 “rookie season” helmet, according to court papers.

Two-time Super Bowl MVP Manning took part in the scheme so he could hang on to his personal items, according to the documents.

The memorabilia ruse is so common among Giants players and staffers, the documents claim, that team equipment manager Joe Skiba openly discussed Manning’s fake game gear on an official Giants e-mail account.

The lawsuit emerged as Manning’s big brother, Peyton, prepares to lead the Denver Broncos against the Seattle Seahawks in Sunday’s Super Bowl at MetLife Stadium, the Giants’ home field.

A rep for the Giants on Thursday said, “This suit is completely without any merit whatsoever and we will defend it vigorously. We will not otherwise comment on pending litigation.”

In my youth I knew a roadie for the Rolling Stones. He was a crazy English dude and he would sell anything not nailed down that was related to the band. The economics of that life required it. The tour covered travel and lodging, but pay was minimal. The roadies made their money scalping tickets, selling band stuff and trading on their connection to the band. It was very much the carny lifestyle. I’m guessing the people working for pro sports teams have a similar life. They sell anything they can that belongs to the players.

The allegations are part of a civil-racketeering, breach-of-contract, malicious-prosecution and trade-libel suit filed Wednesday in Bergen County Superior Court by sports collector Eric Inselberg.

In one startling claim, the suit says Barry Barone, who has been the Giants’ dry cleaner since 1982, used his Rutherford, NJ, Park Cleaners store to beat up jerseys and other items at the behest of longtime locker-room manager Ed Wagner Jr.

In a 2001 incident, Wagner told Barone “to intentionally damage multiple jerseys to make them appear to have been game-worn when they had not been.”

Inselberg’s lawyer, Brian Brook of Clinton Brook & Peed, said his client walked in to find Barone “using a big pair of scissors to cut up a set of Giants’ 2000 season’s game-issued white jerseys,’’ in order to then “’repair’ those damages” to make the shirts look used.

Then you have the very honest men in the memorabilia business:

Inselberg was indicted in 2011 for memorabilia fraud for selling bogus used sport jerseys from teams.

But federal prosecutors in Rockford, Ill., dropped all the charges in May 2013, telling the judge that “prosecution was no longer appropriate in light of some new facts that were pointed out to us by defense counsel.”

The case was jettisoned two days after Inselberg’s defense lawyers told the court that Giants staffers had lied to the grand jury that indicted him about their relationship with him, in a bid to cover up for the team’s own fake-memorabilia sales.

Wednesday’s lawsuit is Inselberg’s attempt at retribution against the Giants.

The new suit alleges that Wagner, along with Skiba and his brother, Ed, also an equipment manager, were told by team brass to lie to federal investigators and the grand jury about how much Giants sports gear they sold him over the years.

I had an exchange last week with someone about the future of the country. Specifically the future of the country after the Republicans push through another amnesty. His point, one with which I largely agree, is that amnesty pretty much ends the Right as a force in American politics. The Right has very little influence now, but it is an obstacle that causes problems for the Left and their enablers.

Classical Liberalism, the only post-Christian alternative to the the radicalism we typically associate with the Left, will die out in a America with another 30-50 million third world citizens. If these newcomers really wanted western style civil order, they would institute it in their own lands. They don’t, which is why their home countries are something other than orderly. Bringing tens of millions of people who prefer the dynamics of a banana republic means America will become a banana republic.

The argument that these people will l change once they land on the magic soil of America is crazy, given what we know about democracy. Both parties will change in order to appeal to the sensibilities of the new imported peasant class. The political parties will resemble what we see in Europe, one form of socialism versus other forms of socialism, along with some multicultural stuff. Anything resembling the chamber of commerce style conservatism of the GOP will be on the fringe.

No nation is perfect and a “propositional” nation like America is always going to be at odds with itself over the defects. As long as the country is overwhelmingly white, it beats the homogenizing and stifling conformity forced on the citizens of most civilized nations. It certainly beats the barbarism of the uncivilized lands. The key though is for American to remain overwhelmingly white and that’s not going to happen now.

If you are going to love your country, loving one that loves you back is a good choice. That has been the relation for most white people in America, but that will soon be a thing of the past. My “countrymen” will have no more in common with me than a guy living in China. My rulers will see me as just another subject, no different than any of the other entries on the spreadsheet. That’s the reason fertility rates in Europe have collapsed. Why would anyone bring someone into a world of strangers?

People who fret about the future and those unhappy with the people in charge, tend to rely on Orwell for their ammunition. The truth is, Orwell got most things wrong. The future is not going to be a boot stamping on a human face forever. The future is going to be something closer to what Huxley had in mind.

Automation will do most of the work required to sustain life and people will spend their free time on drugs or their technological equivalents. The “feelies” were a type of movie experience Huxley described where the viewers experienced raw emotions, rather than watching a story with characters and plot. According to this story, books will soon deliver emotion to the reader.

Researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology have created a “wearable” book which allows the reader to experience the protagonist’s emotions.

Using a combination of sensors, the book senses which page the reader is on and triggers vibration patterns through a special vest.

“Changes in the protagonist’s emotional or physical state trigger discrete feedback in the wearable [vest], whether by changing the heartbeat rate, creating constriction through air pressure bags, or causing localised temperature fluctuations” the researchers said.

The vest contains a personal heating device to change skin temperature and a compression system to convey tightness or loosening through airbags.

It will not be long before movies move from 3D to 4D, where the fourth dimension is smelling, tasting and so forth. Instead of sitting in a theater, you put on your headset, plug into the grid and join other in some grand adventure that is like being in a video game. It will be lucid dreaming with a social element. Old people will lie around reliving their youth until the state pulls the plug. Maybe it will work out just fine or maybe not.

I’m reading an 80 year old copy of J.B.S. Haldane’sThe Inequality of Man, which is one of those books that still has some relevance to this age. Every so often, Haldane gets some mention, as in the case of Richard Dawkins in the 1970’s. Like a lot of smart white guys from the past, his ideas are now heretical, so few dare mention him or his ideas. HBD’ers will reference him from time to time, but otherwise he is slowly being forgotten.

My copy is a worn old copy that is a few years from falling to pieces. I don’t know where I got it, but I figured I should read it before it falls to dust. As I’m reading bits of the page’s edge falls away, creating a natural bookmark. Even though it is 80 years old and written by an upper class Brit, the book reads easier than most modern stuff. The old British academics really knew how to use the language to reach a broad audience.

There’s a great value, I think, to reading old books in science and social commentary. One of the things that jumps off the page right from the start is just how fresh much of his discussion of population differences seems today. I recently re-read The Money Game by Adam Smith. You would think a book about Wall Street written in the 1960’s would seem ridiculous today. Instead, it was as fresh as anything written today.

His treatment of computers and markets (keep in mind that computers were rarities in the 1960’s) was strikingly prescient. The lesson you take away is the money game, the world of finance, has not changed much at all in fifty years. The point of the book, is it had not changed much in the previous fifty years. Reading stories about scams run by big banks on the 1920’s, that are just like those run today, is a bit jarring in a good way.

That’s one reason why I think it is wise to read old books from time to time. It is a good reminder that the world has not changed very much. By old books, I don’t just mean classics. A well-read man should have read the Western Canon. I mean old books that were popular in their day, but are not included as classics of Western thought. It’s like going back in time and learning about common sense all over again.

Of course, this why the Left locks up history into a trunk and buries it in the backyard. Constant reminders that human relations have not changed very much makes the idea of Marxist Man ridiculous even to the most gullible. If the nature of man is transcendent and rooted in his biology, Marxist Man is an impossibility. Then you have the fact that the ideas current with modern radicals are just recycled from past radicals.

Reading about people 100 years ago making the same claims people are making today is satisfying until you learn they failed disastrously. That is going to take the wind out of the sails of even the most dedicated. “This time things will be different” can only take you so far. Those promised benefits of some form of socialism sound less compelling when you read the same claims made fifty years ago.

That said, there’s a service to the stable minded too. Haldane was one of the first population geneticists. He was also a Marxist. On the one hand, he offers up respectable and rational ideas about population genetics. On the other hand, he claims Soviet communism is a great success and will work in the long run. Incredibly, he claims the Soviets had, at the time of his writing, made no attempt to socialize agriculture.

At the time, the Soviets were brutally collectivizing the peasants, killing millions in the process. It is also during the Holodomer, which a British intellectual of his stature surely heard some rumors. He may not have known the details, but the rumors were everywhere. The point here is that brilliant people are capable of believing outrageously insane things. Reading old books on social commentary is a great reminder of that.

What I’m enjoying about Haldane is something HBD chick touches on in this blog post. Population genetics and eugenics are separate things. The modern critics of HBD immediately throw out the eugenics card. Of course, they quickly jump to Hitler the holocaust, tying population genetics to mass murder. It’s a tactic aimed at shutting down any discussion of the subject by making it immoral on its face.

Haldane goes to great lengths explaining why the eugenicists are wildly mistaken on the science of genetics. What we know now and what he could not know then, is what the Left would do with these ideas. The modern Left’s assault on HBD has little to do with science and everything to do with history. The heroes of the American Left were eugenics promoters. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a eugenicist, who wanted to sterilize the unfit.

That’s an obvious example, but the Progressive Era is full of them. Sterilization campaigns were a regular feature of the American Left from the beginning. The language changed, but the underlying justification remained. Programs launched by liberals in the 60’s and 70’s aimed at reducing birth rates in black ghettos were just thinly veiled eugenics programs. Of course, it is hard to be the friend of the black man if you have been systematically trying to snuff them out.

In contrast, the HBD folks, for the most part, don’t try to tease morality or public policy from the science of population genetics. There are exceptions and abuse, but the folks dedicated to the science don’t care about the politics. The reason is an example Haldane uses. Atoms do not act in predictable ways. Instead, they act in a number of ways with differing degrees of probability. Rolled up into a bar of steel, however, the mathematics presents an object to us that acts predictably and seemingly consistently.

One last thing on reading old books. There’s a valuable lesson in the wrongness of their certainty. One of my few criticism of John Derbyshire is his blind spot to the error rates of science. The history of science is the history of error. Reading Haldane’s ideas on cancer and what comes next for the treatment of the disease is cringe inducing. His description of blacks in America and their likely future is hilariously anachronistic.

The point is Haldane was brilliant and empirically minded, but he and his contemporaries were wrong about a great many things. Those who came after them made their careers proving them wrong. Those who come after us will do us the same favor. Therefore, it is wise to keep open the possibility that what we think we know now is all wrong. That does not mean there is no truth, just that humans are prone to error.

Few things are as mysterious as Asian business practices. It is a strange combination of complexity and opacity, sprinkled with a heavy dose of dishonesty that is forever off-limits to the Western mind. The word “inscrutable” comes to mind. A good example is right here. In the West, a firm struggling to pay its bills and threatening to default will do so in a very public fashion. If the regulators take over, they perform a public audit, liquidate the assets and pay creditors based on an agreed upon framework.

If the firm goes into bankruptcy, that is also a public process. If a white knight comes in and puts up a bunch of cash, then we learn who it is and why they are coming to the rescue. It is not perfectly transparent, but the public and interested parties will know enough to judge the results. A big part of Western economics is transparency. That does not mean there are no insiders doing inside deals, but we have laws against insider dealings for a reason.

In China, the banking system is a mystery to everyone, including the people in the Chinese banking system. China Credit Trust Co has no money of its own. It sold a product to investors promising a ten percent return on loans to a firm that has no money to repay the loans. That’s not how it was presented, but that is the reality of it. In the West, this is called fraud, but in China this is just how deals are done. They make New York City real estate seem simple.

Zhenfu Energy, desperate for cash, went to private firms to borrow money at rates well above market. China Credit Trust Co appears to have created a product to be sold to retail banking customers to funnel money into the struggling energy company. It was a fraud, but most of modern banking is a fraud. Now that the energy company is defaulting on the loan, China Credit Trust Co cannot pay the retail investors their promised return.

This was all supposed to happen at the end of the month. Today a mysterious and undisclosed white knight has arrived to supply the cash. Everyone knows the white knight is the Chinese Communist Party, but no one will dare say it. It is simply a “restructuring” that papers over the problem for now. A month from now some mid-level functionary will kill himself and everyone will know why, but no one will dare say.

It is no way to run a modern economy, but that’s another thing everyone knows, but no one dares say. Instead, the West looks the other way and hopes those inscrutable Chinese keep buying up the useless paper the credit machines keep emitting every month. At some point, the incompatibility between Asian practices and western practices will become too obvious to ignore. Most likely, it will cost the West a lot to learn this lesson.

This is an interesting post that give an insight into the way Conservative Inc. operates behind the scenes. Talk radio is not as popular as it used to be in the 80’s and 90’s. Limbaugh created the genre in the late Reagan years. He was not the first guy or the only guy, but he perfected the format as a combination of right-wing shouting, humor and a fast paced format. Sean Hannity is a loudmouth and Savage is a bit of a nut, but they stick to a format that works and compete for the same audience.

Conservative talk radio is often just Republican talk radio. In the Bush years, guys like Hannity and Limbaugh were so far in the tank for Bush they should have been getting a W2 from the GOP. The discourse is pretty low, but it can be informative and a good check on party politics, but a lot of it is just cheerleading. Still, give Hannity credit for using his head in this case. He is using friendly media to win a fight with a rival, while Savage is relying on gossip mongers from the Left.

The recent uproar over Huckabee’s comments at some Republican meeting is a good example of the stupid party in action. Dana Bash, a far left activist posing as a media person, is an obvious liar, so why give her access? The woman works for NBC which is nothing more than a megaphone for the Left. MSNBC, their cable arm, is a collection of people who should be institutionalized. Why the Republicans would invite these nuts in and give the media credentials is the great mystery of our time.

Marriage is all about reproduction. Without it, you’re left with the equivalent of an intimate handshake agreement on how to divide up the property when one or both parties gets bored. It is what makes homosexual marriage irrational. Two men cannot create a child together, so by definition they can never be married to one another. Marriage is a biological act, as much as a social construct. To divorce one from the other is to disconnect the institution from reality.

There are crazier modern fads, but it does tell us a lot about the people debating it. Arguments for changing public policy, the good ones least ways, contain knowledge of the current policy, its origins, its trade-offs and then the reasons why the new policy is superior. That allows everyone to agree to the facts in advance. The “good” arguments are basically an appeal to generosity to people afflicted with a terrible condition.

On the other hand, homosexual marriage advocates dispense with that and instead throw a tantrum, demanding you justify your opposition to their tantrum. It is a standard practice of the Left to use rhetoric to flip the argument on its head. Instead of the burden being on them to make the affirmative argument in favor of their cause, they force everyone else to defend the status quo to their satisfaction. They start with some form of “why shouldn’t homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else?”

In this regard, libertarians suffer from many of the same defects. They are not as egregious, owing to their fringe status, but they tend to do the same thing with rhetoric. This is most obvious with cultural items. They always retreated into the critic role, demanding conservative justify their position, rather than making the libertarian case for the issue. That way they can avoid having to defend their own position, which almost always compatible with the Progressive position. This Denninger post, for example.

Marriage is none of the government’s damn business. It’s sad that it took the gay screamers to wake people up to this, but if it results in Oklahoma actually doing the right thing it will be about damn time.

Tell me this — why is it that you want the State in your bedroom? I don’t give a **** if you’re straight or gay, just give me one good reason why you’d invite the ****ing government behind your bedroom door. Ever. For any purpose.

But you do, and what’s worse is that if you actually honor a religious, that is, a sacramental marriage irrespective of what faith you follow you have sworn falsely before your God by having the pastor sign a state marriage license.

As with the Left, libertarians tend to violate the Chesterton’s fence principle. They have no idea why the rules and institutions were created. They seem to think they were either forced on us by some supernatural entity or sprung from random nothingness. The assumption is there is no reason for these things to exist, so they see no reason to not tear them down. Denninger just assumes that society, through the state, has no interest in marriage and that marriage licenses are immoral. He does not ask why they exist.

The libertarian argument on this issue is nonsense. This excellent post on matting patterns of medieval Franks illustrates that policing marriage predates Christianity and the nation state. Human populations have been keeping an eye on mating habits for a very long time, perhaps from the earliest times of human settlement. It turns out that humans have always known how babies are made and they noticed problems when babies are made between siblings or first cousins.

Other species have ways of dealing with inbreeding like the Westermarck Effect. The best way Mother Nature has to handle inbreeding is the defective progeny dies off quickly. Humans, having the ability to reason through these results, soon figured out that mothers and sons should not be mating. Whether a natural repulsion developed, followed by the taboo or the other way around, human societies have been policing the mating choices of its members since the beginning. Again, marriage is about reproduction, not sex.

In the Christian world, the church was enlisted in the war on cousin marriage long after authorities took an interest in it. It is not hard to see what human populations would worry about this problem. Every defect is a burden. If you get too many burdens, you end up using more extreme measures to remedy the problem. We know, for example, that human society has practiced infanticide to cull the defective from the population.

If you want to argue that this is no longer necessary in modern times, keep in mind that we are taking in tens of millions of people from places where inbreeding is still common. Then there is the urban and rural underclass where inbreeding is always a concern. If you don’t have someone policing the lower ranks, you will get a large low-IQ population in a few generations. Unfettered liberty works great for smart rich people, but it becomes increasingly problematic as you move left on the IQ curve. People have always known this.

Mating habits are a central concern of all human populations. Try this thought experiment. The world is wiped out by some plague and the remaining 100 people are all of child bearing ages, equally divided between boys and girls. What are the first priorities of the group? Obviously, the group has survival needs. Food, fresh water, fire, shelter and defense against nature are the first concerns. Organizing to solve these primary issues must happen if the population is to survive the first winter.

The next thing they will do is figure out how to handle the inevitable paring off, mating a child birth. Again, if they are to survive, figuring this out is at the top of the list. There is the issue of conflict over sex, but also the need to have a next generation. This is a A-level concern for the tribe, so it will require all of their attention, just the acquisition of food and water is a primary concern.

That’s why libertarians properly belong on the fringe. They are every bit as kooky as people lining their clothes with aluminum foil to keep the aliens from tracking them. What they believe and what they advocate are at odds with obvious reality. We general define insanity as a gap between perception and reality that cannot be remedied. That seems to be the case for libertarians.

The pseudo-intellectual poser is almost always a creature of the Left, but they do turn up on the Right as well. They cultivate a certain look and a superficial knowledge of many subjects, but never enough to really know much about them. It’s not just their pretentiousness, but also their precociousness that defines them. They are too good for the rest of us. One such example is Jamie Bartlett, a blogger at the Telegraph, who is worked up over those of us on the Dissident Right.

Since 2012 a sophisticated but bizarre online neo-fascist movement has been growing fast. It’s called “The Dark Enlightenment”. Its modus operandi is well suited to a digital society. Supporters are dotted all over the world, connected via a handful of blogs and chat rooms. Its adherents are clever, angry white men patiently awaiting the collapse of civilisation, and a return to some kind of futuristic, ethno-centric feudalism.

It started, suitably enough, with two blogs. Mencius Moldbug, a prolific blogger and computer whizz from San Francisco, and Nick Land, an eccentric British philosopher (previously co-founder of Warwick University’s Cybernetic Culture Research Unit) who in 2012 wrote the eponymous “The Dark Enlightenment”, as a series of posts on his site. You can find them all here.

HBDChick does an excellent job taking the guy apart. It explains the liberal use of the word “fascist” in his rants. Marxism, like all groups on the Left needs bogeymen. The Marxists call their bogeymen fascists, which is a catch-all phrase for the undifferentiated other they fear is on the other side of the door, ready to burst in and snatch them away. It says something about the world when it is OK to be a Marxist, despite the fact that cult has murdered about 100 million people worldwide.

From his blog, it appears he is writing a book about the dark forces he and his fellows are fighting against on-line. In another age, they would be writing hotly worded letters, that were never sent or read. Today, they end up on blogs at the Telegraph or the Times. Of course, they never take on anyone with real power. The so-called Dark Enlightenment types are just people with other opinions. They don’t have spots in mass media or positions of authority. Jamie Bartlett can attack them without fear of retribution.

In the 17th century, European settlers in North America saw the native populations as an obstacle to progress. That was not an unreasonable proposition since the natives had not made it far past the Stone Age. They were using stone arrows and spears, wore animal skins and lived in nomadic tribes. From the perspective of Europeans, these people were barbarians.

The locals may not have been very advanced and they were certainly not very bright, but they soon figured out that it was a bad idea to let the white man settle in their lands. A long war of attrition won by the technologically superior (and eventually numerically superior) whites turned North America into a European outpost and then a European country. The point being that even primitive nomads could quickly figure out that the tribe that controls the land wins and the tribe that loses, dies out.

Everywhere else on planet earth, human populations have been killing one another over land since the dawn of time. So much so we have developed elaborate methods to keep tribes apart from one another. People knew that mixing a bunch of Tribe X into Tribe Y’s turf was going to lead to violence. One tribe would try to dominate the other, assuming the other tribe was going to do the same thing. It’s just a fact of human existence that people used to understand.

Now, against that backdrop consider what the GOP is considering for the end of this summer. It will consist of at least four bills, to be voted on by the end of the summer. One bill is an amnesty for illegal aliens that doesn’t lead to citizenship.The second bill is a Dream Act–like amnesty granting green cards (and eventual citizenship) to illegals who came as juveniles. The third bill will require tracking of foreign nationals. Finally, the fourth bill increase importation of low-skilled workers to compete with unemployed Americans.

And though none of the bills is likely to offer a path to full citizenship, the fact Republicans are preparing to take on immigration at all is a sign the party is coming to grips with a political reality: if they want to win elections in the long run, they’ll have to face the issue.

After the last amnesty in the 1980’s, the GOP’s share of the Hispanic vote declined from 37% to 30%. In fact, it has never again risen above 31% and that was with George Bush, who spoke Spanish and was super friendly to Mexicans. Bush arguably did more for Mexican peasants than any Mexican leader in the history of the country. Bush expanded resettlement and dropped the English requirement.

The author of the piece just assumes it is the GOP’s problem to fix what the Left has destroyed. Liberal democrats were the champions of the last two amnesty deals and are behind the current amnesty deal. In fairness, the global elites are buying off people like Boehner and Ryan so both parties have their snouts in the trough this time. Still, the assumption that the GOP has to win the votes of invaders, rather than citizens says a lot about the state of the American political elite.

Immigration is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. The degree and timing is what determines the right course. In boom times, it may make sense to bring in guest workers and ramp up the naturalization of immigrants. The numbers should reflect the needs of the native population. In lean times, like the last five years, foreign workers should be thrown out with some rare exceptions, like those who possess some unique skill. We don’t want to deport all of our hockey players.

Nothing like economic necessity is involved here. The ruling elites of America have concluded that America is too white. They want to remedy that by importing fifty million Hispanics, who they consider non-white. If it were practical, they would bring in fifty million Congolese, but the running of slave ships over the Atlantic is bad form, for now. The question that comes to mind is “If our government hates us, what would they be doing different?” Replacing the population sounds like hatred to most people.

That’s part of what is driving the mass suicide we see going on throughout the West. When the majority of British school children are not British, it is not hard to see what the future holds for the Brits. At every turn, the citizens of the West are being told that they are worthless or that they are evil. It’s done in pop culture, the media and public policy. When the political leaders care more for the welfare of foreigners, the message is clear. There are other factors for sure, but the West is dead, so the people are dying.